Iraq whitewash? Swathes of UK public inquiry findings suppressed

A lack of transparency concerning a UK public inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq has bred heated criticism that its findings may vindicate a brutal war that divided the nation and blackened Tony Blair’s decade-long leadership.

In the aftermath of the
eight-year investigation, the inquiry’s concluding report has
been delayed as a result of negotiations concerning its content.
Of particular concern to the British establishment, are records
of a series of meetings and exchanges between then-US President
George W. Bush and Blair.

It first emerged the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Defence had
blocked the release of these records in May 2014. Several months
later, it has now been confirmed large proportions of these
controversial exchanges will be omitted from the inquiry’s final
report – remaining obscured from public knowledge indefinitely.

Following the conclusion of this inquiry, the investigation's
chair, Sir John Chilcot, is set to issue letters to former Prime
Minister Tony Blair and then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Chilcot is reportedly critical of the duo with respect to the
UK's invasion of Iraq, and subsequent military conduct there in
the years that followed.

While Chilcot's letters may be welcomed by the British public, an
overall lack of transparency relating to the report’s findings is
likely to prove a disappointment for many.

Chilcot’s agreement to only release portions of the Blair-Bush
exchanges could potentially jeopardize questions posed in the
aftermath of the investigation’s findings. It will also be
regarded by many as a retreat from a prior insistence on
transparency.

At the time of the Iraq Inquiry’s enactment, then Prime Minister
Gordon Brown emphasized “no British document and no British
witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry” unless it
is “essential to our national security.”

But the omission of potentially crucial Bush-Blair records raises
serious questions about the “legitimacy of the
investigation” and reinforces a “culture of opacity in
defense and security services,” according to Jameela
Raymond, a defense and security expert at Transparency
International (TI) UK.

Raymond claims that since the inception of TI UK’s Defence and
Security Programme, the anti-corruption think tank has witnessed
state opacity justified on the grounds of national security on
countless occasions.

While withholding information from the public as a means of
preserving national security may, at times, be necessary, Raymond
insists it is often merely an “excuse to hide corruption and
avoid embarrassing those who do not wish their decisions to be
accountable.”

“National security is no excuse for excessive secrecy and it
is a phrase that democratic governments should use only when it
genuinely applies. Rather than protect us, a lack of transparency
can foster insecurity at home and abroad by undermining the
legitimacy of our armed forces and the decision-making process of
our elected representatives,” she said on Friday.

Last week, during a select committee hearing, Sir Jeremy
indicated he wanted Chilcot to publish “the maximum
possible” without jeopardizing Britain’s relationship with
the US and “without revealing secrets that don’t need to be
revealed.”

But given the Iraq war burdened Britain with a huge financial and
human cost, the full release of the Blair administration’s
reasons for going ahead with the conflict is arguably in the
public interest. Should state secrecy prevail in this context,
Raymond insists Britain’s “leaders will not be held
accountable for their actions.”

Chilcot's agreement only to release portions of the Blair-Bush
exchanges could compromise the efficacy and integrity of the Iraq
Inquiry.

Raymond argues those who have obstructed crucial elements of the
inquiry’s findings owe the British public an explanation. But
whether such a justification will surface remains to be seen.